re post 523
Biblical scholars have not been "literalists" for at least 75 years.
It is simply not any longer a tenable position. Archaology , form criticism, and textual criticism have demonstrated literalism is not viable.
It's also ignorant of the forms of ancient Near Eastern literature, where "literalism" simply does not fit with the known forms of literature of the time.
Literalism is a form of historical "presentism" and American Fundamentalism.
There is no word in Archaic Hebrew for "history" and it was not a culturally accepted "concept" UNTIL it was needed to keep track of the succession of the kings.
The very best conservative Christian Biblical scholars are not literalists. Scholarship has LONG ago has gone WAY beyond that (childish) position.
You're welcome to comment in the thread as it progresses.
POINTY 1 - It is true that there has been an ungodly profusion of liberal “scholarship” on the Bible, theology, etc... this is undisputed
but your claim “Biblical scholars have not been "literalists" for at least 75 years.” c’mon, are you for real? Is this the best you have?
this is ridiculous. there always have been great numbers of conservative commentators. So, to say “Biblical scholars have not been "literalists" for at least 75 years.” is kinda a very selective statement on your part proving absolutely nothing much.
POINTY 2 - As for “It is simply not any longer a tenable position. Archaology , form criticism, and textual criticism have demonstrated literalism is not viable.”
Please tell - what have you established by this pompous statement - again, absolutely nothing. All you do is spout what you hope to be believed. Sorry, I am not that gullible.
Why is what I hold to (according to your beliefs) an untenable position? How & where has the art of “form criticism, and textual criticism” proved anything?
Maybe they (the form & text critics) have just enriched life - show me how we have improved as a species in the last 75 years through the elucidations of these such critics. Making a statement accounts to nothing. Please, send me some, as best as can be, empirical links to be considered.
POINTY 3 - “form criticism, and textual criticism” are liberalism at it’s deceptive best. It pretends sound exegesis while mainly offering straight up eisegesis. This is slight of mind, at it’s best.
POINTY 4 - “Archaology , form criticism, and textual criticism have demonstrated literalism is not viable.”
Archeology has physical substance - here is something it might be better to focus on. Tell me where & how archeology has NOT been found to support the Biblical accounts?
POINTY 5 - No need for me to continue.
Biblical scholars have not been "literalists" for at least 75 years.
It is simply not any longer a tenable position. Archaology , form criticism, and textual criticism have demonstrated literalism is not viable.
It's also ignorant of the forms of ancient Near Eastern literature, where "literalism" simply does not fit with the known forms of literature of the time.
Literalism is a form of historical "presentism" and American Fundamentalism.
There is no word in Archaic Hebrew for "history" and it was not a culturally accepted "concept" UNTIL it was needed to keep track of the succession of the kings.
The very best conservative Christian Biblical scholars are not literalists. Scholarship has LONG ago has gone WAY beyond that (childish) position.
You're welcome to comment in the thread as it progresses.
POINTY 1 - It is true that there has been an ungodly profusion of liberal “scholarship” on the Bible, theology, etc... this is undisputed
but your claim “Biblical scholars have not been "literalists" for at least 75 years.” c’mon, are you for real? Is this the best you have?
this is ridiculous. there always have been great numbers of conservative commentators. So, to say “Biblical scholars have not been "literalists" for at least 75 years.” is kinda a very selective statement on your part proving absolutely nothing much.
POINTY 2 - As for “It is simply not any longer a tenable position. Archaology , form criticism, and textual criticism have demonstrated literalism is not viable.”
Please tell - what have you established by this pompous statement - again, absolutely nothing. All you do is spout what you hope to be believed. Sorry, I am not that gullible.
Why is what I hold to (according to your beliefs) an untenable position? How & where has the art of “form criticism, and textual criticism” proved anything?
Maybe they (the form & text critics) have just enriched life - show me how we have improved as a species in the last 75 years through the elucidations of these such critics. Making a statement accounts to nothing. Please, send me some, as best as can be, empirical links to be considered.
POINTY 3 - “form criticism, and textual criticism” are liberalism at it’s deceptive best. It pretends sound exegesis while mainly offering straight up eisegesis. This is slight of mind, at it’s best.
POINTY 4 - “Archaology , form criticism, and textual criticism have demonstrated literalism is not viable.”
Archeology has physical substance - here is something it might be better to focus on. Tell me where & how archeology has NOT been found to support the Biblical accounts?
POINTY 5 - No need for me to continue.
